Privacy Rights and Press Freedoms
By
Valerie Jacks
Axia College of University of Phoenix

As citizens of the United States, we expect what we do behind closed doors to remain private, whether or not the act is illegal. We expect our telephone conversations to be private, not to be recorded by the government. We hope that our dirty little secrets, like drug addictions or prison time, not to be public information. The more famous or infamous a person is, the more all of these expectations of privacy are breached. The press seems to love making public all information regarding a celebrity or criminal. They see it as a public necessity or entertainment. Criminals facing a court trial face scrutiny from the press. The press will expose every element of the criminal’s life, all aspects of the crime committed, and where possible, they will broadcast the trial on television. Televising the trials is a matter of controversy that still is in debate today. Since 1946, when the electronic coverage of federal criminal trials was outlawed, until today, cameras are allowed in certain trials, but not others. As of July 2001, all 50 states now allow some type of camera access to their courtrooms. Federal trials still are a no camera zone. There is much debate about cameras in the court room. Opponents of televised trials believe that cameras could change how participants in the trial act. They also believe that cameras may intimidate some witnesses, through either fear of reprisal or their own secrets revealed to the public. Opponents also fear that judges will make rulings based on public opinion not the law. They fear judges will cave to public opinion, letting a popular criminal off or laying down to harsh a sentence when the trial is televised. Opponents also feel that with media coverage of crime, it is harder to find an unbiased jury. With the coverage of all the pre trial goings on, the case is presented in the media prior to the trial making it difficult to...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...Freedom of the press versus right to privacy
ByRobert Skidelsky (China Daily)
Privacy has become a big issue in contemporary jurisprudence. The "right to privacy" is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But Article 8 is balanced by Article 10, which guarantees "free expression of opinion". So what right has priority when they conflict?
Under what circumstances, for example, is it right to curtail pressfreedom in order to protect the right to privacy, or vice versa? The same balance is being sought between the right of citizens to data privacy and government demands for access to personal information to fight crime, terrorism, and so on.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental democratic liberty. It is a necessary protection against abuses of power and cover-ups of wrongdoing by public officials. It was never more effectively displayed than in the Watergate investigation, which brought down Richard Nixon in 1974.
But one can have too much pressfreedom. Over the years, the tabloid press has become increasingly intrusive, claiming the right not just to expose corruption...

...of local newspaper, even the mass media, has declined. Many local newspapers are competing against one another to capture their reader’s attention by exposing private lives of celebrities and using sensational headlines. They assign paparazzi to track celebrities closely, setting up inescapable dragnet to make sure every little thing of life, even taking off bra, must be caught. The general public, disappointedly, has got used to getting amusement from these celebrities’privacy. Their privacy, however, are disclosed in extraordinarily great in detail.
Government should encourage people to talk and come to a consensus about legislation against intrusion into privacy. Nevertheless, such legislation may curtail protections for the freedom of the press. Legislation against paparazzism is a double-edged sword that may deter coverage that is in the public interest. Government should encourage people would come to a consensus and strike a balance between protecting privacy and protecting the freedom of the press.
The essential thing to do is to educate the public on the media. It is better to try to drive shoddy publications out of business by elevating the public's taste in reading matter.
Some publishers would stop at nothing to boost sales. Some have made pornography and voyeurism their selling points. A radical way of curbing the evil tendency is to...

...Asia includes the two worst-rated countries in the world, Burma and North Korea, as well as China, Laos, and Vietnam, all of which feature extensive state or party control of the press. Conditions in the world’s largest poor performer, China, remained highly repressive in 2009. Authorities increased censorship and Communist Party propaganda in traditional and online media in the periods surrounding high-profile events, such as politically sensitive anniversaries and a visit by U.S. President Barack Obama. Dozens of detailed party directives curbed coverage related to public health, environmental accidents, deaths in police custody, and foreign policy. Journalists investigating corruption or environmental pollution faced a growing threat from physical attacks and politicized charges of bribery, while several activists were sentenced to long prison terms for their online writings. Nevertheless, journalists, bloggers, grassroots activists, and religious believers scored several victories as they continued to push the limits of permissible expression, including the exposure of corruption, the circulation of underground political publications, and the government’s retraction of orders to install Green Dam monitoring and censorship software on all personal computers.
South Asia featured two of the year’s six status changes, and both were positive despite the overall global downward trend.Following numerical improvements in 2008, Bangladesh moved from Not Free...

...most important amendments in the Bill of Rights, protecting the rights to free speech, press, religion, and assembly. However, these rights are laid out ambiguously in the Constitution. This fact has led to many different interpretations to what exactly falls under the protections of these rights and what does not. Often, the federal court system fills in the gaps in legislation on a case-to-case basis, changing the laws as needed. Since the colonial beginnings of our country, free press in particular has been integral to the continuing tradition of democracy that we in America enjoy. It allows the flow of information (both fact and fiction), to flow from one end of the country to the other. However free the press may seem, many forms of press do not fall under the protection of the Constitution, including forms such as the movie industry and libelous writings. It has been the effect of the outcomes of many court cases over our country’s history that has given us the freedom of the press as it is defined today.
Background
The freedom of the press was included in the first amendment of the Constitution in the Bill of Rights in 1791. It was included as part of a promise that if the Constitution was ratified, a Bill of Rights would be added. The founding fathers felt...

...judgment of the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[2] the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression has no geographical limitation and it carries with it the right of a citizen to gather information and to exchange thought with others not only in India but abroad also.
The constitution of India does not specifically mention the freedom of press. Freedom of press is implied from the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Thus the press is subject to the restrictions that are provide under the Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Before Independence, there was no constitutional or statutory provision to protect the freedom of press. As observed by the Privy Council in Channing Arnold v. King Emperor:[3] “The freedom of the journalist is an ordinary part of the freedom of the subject and to whatever length, the subject in general may go, so also may the journalist, but apart from statute law his privilege is no other and no higher. The range of his assertions, his criticisms or his comments is as wide as, and no wider than that of any other subject”. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution ensures to all its citizens the liberty of expression. Freedom of the press has been included as part of freedom of speech and expression under the Article 19 of the UDHR. The...

...FREEDOM OF THE PRESSFreedom of the Press
Blake Crosslin
Axia College of University of Phoenix
Freedom of the Press
“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” (Thomas Jefferson) (Rights of the People)
Freedom of speech applies the rights for individuals to publish ideas. Not only that, it also grants the right printing and for broadcast media to cover news and express political views. As society grows more and more complex, people rely more now than ever on newspapers, television and radio to keep up with politics, world and local news. (Rights of the People)
Freedom of the press and speech originated alike. Under English law, either written or spoken, critical views about the government were punishable by law. The government saw criticism as evil, no matter if it was true or not, it caused doubt to be laid on public officers and decrease their reliability and integrity. During the mid 18th century, progress toward a truly free press was halting until the great English commentator; Sir William Blackstone...

...﻿ Freedom of PressFreedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through mediums including various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections. With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation which are both used to define the extent of national interest.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"
This philosophy is usually accompanied by legislation ensuring various degrees of freedom of scientific research (known as scientific freedom), publishing,...

...﻿IMPORTANCE OF “FREEDOM OF THE PRESS MUST BE EXERCISED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT AS PROVIDED BY THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION”
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE
Teodoro, et al on the book Freedom Of Expression And The Media In The Philippines Chapter I: History of Freedom of the Press demonstrated how the commitment to free speech and expression, the right to information and pressfreedom, with which the leaders of both the 19th century Philippine Reform Movement and the 1896 Revolution were familiar, was continued in the Malolos Constitution of the First Philippine Republic, this was nearly 115 years ago. These provisions did not only survived, but were expanded, in the country's subsequent Constitutions. The freedom of speech and expression, the right to information and pressfreedom were guaranteed in the Philippine Constitution as follows:
The Malolos constitution guaranteed that no Filipino would be deprived of “the right to freely express his ideas or opinions, orally or in writing, through the use of press and similar means”.
The guarantee of the 1987 Constitution in Section 4, Article 3 (Bill of Rights) which says that “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press or the right of the...